Karl Marx

Remove all ads!

Chandos, again, you're asking me to concede a point I never argued. So, again, will you concede that the US is, in fact, a nation?

Actually, no, that's an average, not an assumption. I never assumed that all corporations pay taxes, or that all people pay taxes, or that all of either party pays equal taxes. I was looking at the average. So, as you say, thanks for playing.

Well, again, you could look it up, but apparently that's too low for you. What I said was that some loans count as welfare if they're ridiculously generous. That works because the objective of welfare isn't to give money, but to improve a position. That's usually done through money, but if it works the person can pay that money back without loosing the gained position, thus it's still welfare. For corporate paybacks, that doesn't work, since the actual objective is to give money. If they then have to pay it back, they haven't made any net gain of money, have they? Again, this isn't complicated, just logical. I'm sure you'll call it 'more double-talk', though.

I think you may finally be close to my actual point here. Let's see, can you reach it? The answer is: both! That's right, my whole arguement has been that the Dems use welfare, actual, real welfare, to achieve the 'panem' portion of 'pamen et circenses'. That doesn't mean that's always what welfare is about, just that it's the tool the Dems use it for today.

For that quote, just a history lesson, since you seemed convinced that 'panem et circenses' meant 'vote-buying'. I thought a brief history lesson was needed.

... And apparently missed the whole meaning of the quote.

... Really? Riiiight. That's why we were all so clear on health-care, right? That's why a Republican got elected from Mass, right? Because this stuff is simple. Chandos, this is probably the most BS thing you've said so far. It's got some tough competition, though, so I'm not sure.

... This is just plain stupid now. Now you're selectively quoting me and switching topics. If you'll actually look at what I called 'off-topic', it had nothing to do with the Republicans, but rather to do with you 'responding' to me with unrelated items.

Ok, I'll repeat:
I think you may finally be close to my actual point here. Let's see, can you reach it? The answer is: both! That's right, my whole arguement has been that the Dems use welfare, actual, real welfare, to achieve the 'panem' portion of 'pamen et circenses'. That doesn't mean that's always what welfare is about, just that it's the tool the Dems use it for today.

To be clear, my strong suspicion is that most Dems don't actually care whether welfare works or not, they just want the credit for the attempt. As long as they are trying, the power-base that is the poor (not their only power base by any means, but a big one) will continue supporting them. If they give up on it, they'll loose that support. I suspect some of them may actively want it to not work, though, since that would mean the recipients actually not needing welfare any more and would turn them into the Middle Class (which is pretty unpredictable). This all may just be my cynical side coming through, though.

 

Because you can prove that corporations pay more than idividuals, you keep adding the taxes paid by rich individuals. Here is one of my sources again:

See? What does that state? Again, you keep adding the rich to your claim, because otherwise your claim would appear just retarded.

http://www.corporations.org/welfare/

If you were to say that 1/4 is more than 3/4, I would wonder of you knew that America was indeed a nation. At this point I'm starting to worry for you.

And did you find it? What is that "average?"

How about government subsidized loans to corporations? That's where the government pays the interest for some corporations. I guess that would welfare, since it "imporves their positions."

Well, then how come you keep getting it wrong? If corporations don't pay any interest they are getting "free interest" which is a "gain of money."

So then you don't believe that Democrats give welfare checks to gain popular support, or votes. We are making progress again.

Both those issues are not that complicated. You really believe poiltical theater is "complex?" The reason it's not complicated is because it plays to the simple-minded - it's not designed to be complex.

I hate to confuse you with the facts. But someone has to do it.

Oh, I knew that your point was nothing more than the partisan hackery you just posted. That is why I have been holding you to your points so closely, rather than let you weasel out of this massive piece of regarding your "strong suspicion" about Democrats. As I commented, political theater is "not that complex," NOG. Most of us know it when we see it. Have a nice day.

 

I don't 'keep adding the rich to my claim' for anything. The rich were originally a part of my claim. I group them together because, at least so it seems, so do the Democrats. Again, I never said that corporations pay more than everyone else, nor would I.

That depends on how many corporations there are. No matter what that number actually is, though, I'm fairly certain it's less than 255 million, so that average would be greater for corporations than for the individuals they equate (in terms of taxes payed). You're smart enough to figure this out for yourself, Chandos. I know this, you've proven it before.

That subsidy would certainly count against taxes payed, yes.

Does it really? Or does it just help them maintain their own position? Remember, the point of welfare isn't to keep people from dying, but to give them a chance to raise themselves up, or to raise them up to a position they can keep themselves. If you showed a case of a tiny, minor, insignificant corporation of 15 employees that got such a subsidized loan and used it to become a Fortune 500 company, I'd agree that it's welfare. If you claim that Boeing get's 'welfare' from such a loan, though, I'll have to disagree. Boeing doesn't need it to stay where they are, and isn't significantly improved by recieving it.

See the above. For subsidized loans, it get's a little more complicated. Again, though, if you want to define 'corporate welfare' as a form of welfare, what definition of 'welfare' do you propose we use? And please don't define 'corporate welfare' because the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that is that 'corporate welfare' is such a different thing from all otehr forms of welfare that it has to have a completely unique definition, and thus is as different from welfare as I use the term as is the definition 'the general good and wellbeing of all humankind'. If you say that, you've essentially conceeded that 'corporate welfare' isn't welfare save by your new and unique definition.

Yes, I think we are. You're finally beginning to understand me, after about two and a half pages. No, the welfare check is only half (well, actually, maybe more like 1/4) of the equation.

Ok then, if they're so simple, how about you explain them to me right here. It shouldn't take long, since they're simple, right?

Facts? What facts? I swear, you didn't even read what you responded to there. I just pointed out that you truncated a quote of me, took it completely out of context, and completely changed the topic in order to 'respond', and you claim you're 'confusing me with facts'? Get real.

So you now admit that all this nonesense has been you trying to catch me in BS because you read partisan hackery into my posts? Well, I'm glad we've gone down this bunny trail, but again it was a waste. There was nothing 'partisan' about my post. It attacked the Dems, but it evidences no support of their opposition. I think the Republicans are a tiny bit better, but only because they're more honest about their loyalties (and here the other Democratic power bases equal the Republican ones). That difference is about the difference between sh*t on a tile floor and sh*t on a carpet. One's easier to clean than the other, but both need to be flushed down the toilet ASAP.

To be perfectly clear, I'm completely disgusted with both parties at this point. It's just that the Dems were the topic of the moment.

All in all, though, I find the fact that you read all my attacks on the Dems as partisan hackery, despite my equally critical (if not equally common) comments on the Republicans, says more about you than it does about me.

 

Which claim?

Yes, it does because it gives them an unfair advantage over those who do not receive such benefits. And remember individuals are still paying for that "advantage."

No, they don't. Democrats are just as responsible as Republicans for corporate welfare. I've said that so many times, and the sources I provided claimed that as well. So you didn't bother to read them? I will be courteous enough to post the text right here for you to finally read:


From Cato:

Here's more from Time:

It doesn't matter that you did not look over the material, since you may not agree. But it is helpful that you know where some of this info comes from and what it is based upon.

If we already agree that individuals pay more than corporations in taxes, so none of this matters. I took this to mean that you were trying to prove that corporations pay more than individuals. But keep in mind that there are local taxes, and handouts as well from all levels of government. And not all corporations receive corporate welfare, some don't receive a dime. Again, look over the material.

Try not to think of this in partisan terms - Republican or Democratic - but as a pervasive problem of big government in a truest sense of the word. This how politicians benefit at the expense of the individual and the taxpayer. Party has nothing to do with it. And if you believe that Republicans want less government than Democrats, please pass along that bong to the rest of us once you finish those drugs.

This is just mindless rambling.

Oh, yes, you do throw that small bone out there about Republicans every once in a while, without bothering to explain any of it. And despite your pretenses, this is what you said:

Maybe you don't know fully understand the term:

Oh, but it's NOT parisan. No way.

 

That the Dems indulge in 'Robin Hood'-ism, i.e. taking from the 'rich' (here denoting anyone with money, thus including corporations) and giving to the poor. Note that this isn't on it's face criticism. I don't particularly like it when the government does it as a policy, but it's not always a bad thing.

So, that was a 'yes' to 'It helps them maintain their position', right? If so, that's not really welfare, is it? At least, not as I've defined it.

*sigh* I was talking about taxing them, not giving them things. When the Dems propose raising taxes, it's generally on the rich and corporations, often in a single sentence. Whether they then go back and re-pay the corporations or not is another issue, and another debate.

And oddly enough neither of them say anything about who's behind corporate welfare, just that it happens. You'll note, though, that the Clinton Administration (a Democrat) pledged to attack it. Now, whether that was just lipservice or not I don't know, but I don't think I've ever heard a Republican attack such programs.

Actually, I did look over that material, and I do agree. Again, though, it doesn't say anything about who does it. Here you go again with your bad assumptions. I never claimed corporate welfare didn't exist. I never even hinted that I believed that. In fact, I've corrected you on this several times now. Why do you persist?

Actually, I was trying to show that corporations as a whole payed more than the middle-class and below. Now, that largely depends on how you define 'middle class', but it was supplimentary to the idea that rich individuals and corporations (together) pay most of the taxes. Since I think you've agreed to that now, I don't think this debate is productive.

I still think the Republicans are much more responsable for it than the Democrats.

And where, exactly, did that come from? I've been accusing the Republicans of being the patrons of corporate welfare, haven't I? Maybe you should be passing your own bong to someone else. I think you've had enough.

The fact that this is the only response you can muster means one of two things to me:
1.) You aren't smart enough to figure out what I said.
2.) You can't come up with a counter-arguement, or even meet my request, so this is an attempt to dismiss it without responding.
Since I know you're usually quite intelligent, I don't believe #1.

... You're right, it's not. Partisan, as you seem to be using it, refers to support of a party (especially extreme or irrational support). Now, that can often manifest as attacks on their opponents, but that doesn't mean all criticism of their opponents is partisan. Hell, you've criticized the Dems yourself here. Were those criticisms partisan hackery? No, because you weren't supporting their opposition. Neither am I. I know it may be hard for you to believe, but I'm not actually a foaming-at-the-mouth neo-con hack that blames everything under the sun on Obama. Or Pelosi. Nor do I think Bush II was God on Earth. My criticisms of the current Republican party, in this thread and others, are neither 'bones' nor lipservice to anything. They're geniune, and if you want to ask me about them, feel free. This is you're topic, so if you want to turn the conversation there, I won't complain.

Again, the fact that you see all my criticisms of the Dems as partisan hackery and all my criticism of the Reps as meaningless bones tossed to, presumably, throw off the scent of my rampant and irrational partisan hate tells more about you than it does about me.

 

Let's start with this:

Can you qualify that?

As I commented, that is a fantasy. Government takes from many people. Republicans and Democrats, the government, take from my family and other middle-class families and give it to corporations, as I have proven. Most of these corporations are far richer than the average American families from which these handouts are given. Thusly, they take from the "poorer" and give it to the "richer" as well. As I have proven not just the rich, not just the poor, not just the corporations, but most everyone pays taxes. If that money is redistributed to anyone else, including coporations, that money is taken from the US Treasury, which includes most of the income taken in by the government. ALL taxpayers pay into the system, except maybe some select corporations (those who use off-shore addresses to get out of paying their fair share).

As far as the poor, as a group is concerened, it was the Republican Congress that crafted the last major revsion of the welfare program. As I commented in a previous post, you have to go back 30 years to find the "Aid to families with Dependent Children" welfare program. Since then, the Republicans have their fingerprints all over the current welfare programs. Nevertheless, 1996 meant the end of the much criticized Democratic program, AtFwDC.

You can read about it. It is a Republican welfare program, signed by Bill Clinton:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

No, as I said "it improves their positions over the competetion because it is an unfair advantage. As I have told you many times, you don't have to agree with any definition of "welfare." I don't give a flip what you believe.

Are you serious? If the corporations get the money back again it's "another issue?" No, it isn't.

They said that despite promises from Bill Clinton and Congress, coporate welfare actually "increased."

Can you explain that and cite some sources about how it just happens. Cato is blames "government?"

I can't comment on the first part, since corporate welfare is paid for by all classes, including the rich. We are talking about all taxes, including sales taxes, property taxes , state income taxes, even "stadium" taxes and the like. Some corporations get astounding breaks on these taxes that the middle-classes don't get, nor do the rich receive. I can't really say if their taxes are less, equal to, or greater than the middle-classes.

I said IF you believe that, I did not mean to say that you did with any certainty. I was not sure.

I never defined corporate welfare - my sources did, which include, Cato, Ralph Nader and Time. All of them give a working definition. It is "mindless rambling" because we don't agree about that definition, so your comments about the definition of corporate welfare, are going to be different than my sources. You already know that.

Oh, I am a partisan at times, make no mistake. I won't deny it, but I have a different definition than you do. Mine is not based on party, as much as it is on a concept of individual rights. I'm very parisan over any issue that promtes individual rights and against policy that hinders them:

I figured you would be loath to admit that you were a partisan, and you did not disappoint me in the least. How predictable you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan

Next up, the term "Corporate Socialism." Have your dictionary handy for that one, NOG.

 

"DEMS SUCK!"

"REPS SUCK!"

Rinse and repeat.

 

And again, the tendency for Democratic politicians to promote welfare programs and propose to raise taxes on the rich and corporations speaks volumes.

Yes, the republicans have had their hands all over welfare: restricting it. Yes, you've proven that quite well.

Show me a case where it actually led to a noticable change in a company's overall fiscal or socio-political position and I'll call it welfare.

Yes, it is. A valid one, sure, but another issue. Remember, politics is primarily about face and appearance, so a politician who publically taxes X and then pays them back behind the scenes is using the taxation of X as part of their campaign. They're doing it dishonestly, but they're still doing it.

... I was commenting on your sources, Chandos. Do I need to cite sources for a summary of what your sources said?

I'm sorry, but could you clarify this. I know typos happen, but this was bad enough I'm actually not sure what you meant. Did you mean: 'Cato blames "government."? If so, then yes, but doesn't say anything about political parties. Cato doesn't specifically blame both, or either one, just 'government'. My point is that the Reps do this (or seem to) a lot more than Dems. They're still government, of course.

It just came so randomly out of the blue that it sounded to me like a veiled accusation. Sorry if I reacted the wrong way.

Here you go again. I asked you to define 'welfare', not 'corporate welfare'. They're two different things. I have no problem with the definitions of 'corporate welfare' you've posted, just the complete lack of a definition of 'welfare'. This is one of the key points that has caused me so much frustration. Every time I've asked you to provide a definition of 'welfare', you've cited someone defining 'corporate welfare'. That doesn't help any, because we need both defined independantly to show that one is a type of the other,

Ok, sure, partisan can be about ideas, too. It's usually about parties, so that's what I jumped to. Still, it's about 'fervent, sometimes militant' support, not opposition. I haven't supported anything in this thread, except the use of dictionaries, and I don't think that's been too militant or fervent.

Looked it up since I haven't heard that term before. It's an interesting read, though I don't think it's what we have here (at least in most areas). Corporate socialism appears to refer to a unified collective of business areas (agriculture, real estate, manufacturing, etc), often directed by the government through regulation. There are a few select areas where government regulation reaches that level, but no unified collective that I know about.

 

No really, it doesn't. You commented before that it was all just populist rhetoric on their part and I agreed with you on that point. Remember?

They changed the rules, but there is still welfare. They did not wipe it out, only made it more limited. Although some of those Republicans have complained that it is not working the way they hoped, I believe that was still worthwhile, in some ways. For a fuller explaination read the link I posted on the welfare breakdown just recently, and also check out how Repbulicans are now promoting the Food Stamp program. Just Google it and you will find several links on how Food Stamps are helping during the economic downturn, and how Republicans are promoting it. I'm sure you agree that Food Stamps are welfare.

Well yes, but again that is a cynical view. The idea is that it relieves unemployement, creates jobs, all that good stuff, not that it is a payback behind the scenes. That may or may not be the motive (and surely it may be as you say), but there is a saying in politics: "You may question policy and if it is sound or not, but not motive."

My sources don't say, "it just happens." In fact, it says that it is the result of "government policy" and no where does it remark that "it just happens."

Of course. Just who is "government" in a two-party system? There are only two. If there are two parties in a policial system who is to blame? Really, and picking on a typo? I'm not surprised. Sorry I was typing with my 18 month old, sitting on my lap while I was responding.

They are different types of welfare. We have already been through this, and yet you continue to ramble on about it.

I did, like how I'm in the neighborhood watch, because I care about the "welfare" of my neighborhood. But it is not the same type as corporate welfare, nor is it the same as "social welfare." There are different types of welfare, as the sources suggest, if you read them closely.

No, you attacked Demcrats and you know you did, in the most cynical terms and fashion. You even commented that it was your "main point." Unless you are now taking that back and saying something different?

Corporate Socialism:

This link is very hard to find, for some strange reason....

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0718-02.htm

 

Yes, but poopulist rhetoric wins votes.

I Googled it and found an odd mix. Republicans attacking Obama as a food-stamp supporter, Republicans supporting food stamps, Republicans attacking food stamps, even Republicans saying food stamps aren't welfare (which you're right, I disagree with). All in all, though, it shows a few things:
1.) The climate is starting to shift. It's increadible (and the articles reflect this) that Republicans are actively supporting a welfare program. It's a good sign, if only a small one.
2.) The climate hasn't shifted that much (yet). Between the Republicans still using food stamps as an attack and those now trying to justify them as 'not welfare', it's clear that welfare is still a no-no in the book of most Republicans.

I'm not entirely sure it's value is limited to the cynical view. Even if they are genuinely paying the companies back for good, valid reasons, if they're doing it behind the scenes, they're still using the taxation of X as a platform. It's only if they do it publicly, trying to explain it all to the populace, that they aren't using the taxation of X as a platform any more. The Republicans do this, and are usually attacked for ulterior motives (which is likely true). The Dems don't.

I, actually, had never heard that before, nor do I see it reflected in politics.

Ok, I think you're re-wording and taking things out of context again. What I said was that your source didn't say anything about which party did it, just that it happens. I'm not saying Cato claims it 'just happens' without source, I'm just saying that Cato's only citation of source is 'government', which is useless to the debate of which party does it. Both are 'government'.

The one to blame is the one that did it, by votes. Sure, that can easily come up to a complicated mix of the two parties (58% Dem and 32% Rep or something), but it can still be determined.

I just pointed out the typo so that you'd realize where I got any misunderstandings from. If I guessed wrong and just responded, you'd no doubt be completely lost as to what I was talking about. I probably would be. May I assume I guessed right?

Chandos, I don't know how you're missing this. Even if all of those are legitimate forms of welfare, they also have definitions of 'welfare' that they fit within. For example, your 'neighborhood watch as welfare' uses 'the wellbeing of all human kind' (or something similar) as it's definition of 'welfare'. What I'm asking is, which definition of 'welfare' does 'corporate welfare' fit within. Again, as I said before, if the only thing you can come up with is that 'corporate welfare' is it's own type of 'welfare', as distinct from all other types as 'the wellbeing of all humankind' is from 'government aid distributed to the poor', then you've essentially just made up a new definition on the spot, which pretty well means it's not welfare. I can do that to define a twig as a type of 'cat', too.

... Just to be clear, this was posted in response to:

You completely lost me here. Yes, I've attacked the Dems. You could even say I've done so fervently, though that's arguable. I still haven't supported anything. And if I haven't supported anything, then my attacks aren't 'partisan', are they?

Odd, that's not what I found. I'm sorry, but it kind of sounds like Ralph Nader making up a term, only to find it's already in use in another sense. I don't see how Nader's term refers to 'socialism', though. If anything, it sounds more like corporate dictatorship to me.

 

Just like large donations from corporations.

A cynical view would be that they both do because they both take money from the offending corps, and they both support the spending programs.

Well, I was only referring to those who were really trying to be objective, not those who get political gain out of accusing the other side.

No one really tracks this because it is at so many levels of government, from the local elected judge to the President. For instance, GWB actually tried to cut corporate welfare (really, Mr. Corporate America himself), but - here's the "suprise:" while cutting overall corporate welfare, he increased it for specific industries, like oil and gas companies. If you are from Texas, it pays to have a president from Texas. But again, I'm questioning motive, while at the same time, he certainly did increase government grants and subsidies to oil companies.

Ok, I understand now.

I explained all that. It "creates jobs," puts the unemployed to work and "improves the community" (home values, business growth, that type of thing." For instance, if you open a factory in a community, a few restuarants may open nearby for employees who go out to lunch, which creates even more jobs because those restaurants have to be staffed. So it is done to "improve" the well-being of the community. But, as the sources point out, that does not always happen and often the results are only for a short period.

Well, first, I don't agree with your point about welfare. As I said, if you go back 30 years that may have been the case, but it not so much any longer, GENERALLY speaking. Republicans own the current welfare program. While they did a very good reform of the system, IMO, it is still THEIR program. So you are ignoring one side and attacking the other regarding welfare. So, yes it is partisan, since it is like lying by omission (and I'm not saying you are lying, so plese don't take it that way) - it is what you are leaving out of the debate that makes it a cynical, partisan attack. Again, I don't know why you are denying that you are partisan. It's not like it's a big secret. How long have you been posting on this board?

 

"poopulist rhetoric" -- great Freudian slip.

 

That's not cynical, that's... libertarian maybe? The distinction here is that a 'cynical' view expresses doubt of an overly-rosy claim of motives, while this view challenges my claim of facts. I'm sorry, but if you want to prove that the Republicans support welfare and the Dems give lots of money to corporations (and not under the table), you'll have to prove it.

So, what, maybe one or two people out of all of Congress? Sorry, but that doesn't seem like a sizable enough group in politics to be worth considering.

I don't see creating jobs as welfare. If you're paying someone for work they do, even if they wouldn't have had that work unless you had given it to them, you aren't really giving them anything, are you? Not in the 'welfare' sense, at least. You're paying them, demanding something in return for the money. The worker earns the pay, in other words.

I disagree. Yes, they had their hands on it last, but it's not like they could have cut it completely and gotten away with it. They cut it back and restricted it as much as they could reasonably get away with, and that's not support, nor does it make it 'their' program.

Chandos, here's where you're wrong, and unjustified. I ignored (not ommitted) the Republicans simply because they were off-topic. The topic was the Dems, what they've done, and what they're being called (or at least so it seems to me). Bringing in the Repubicans seemed to be going completely in another direction, like if I talked about the gun manufacturers in the School Shooting thread. Sure, they are related, but it's not the topic.

And have you read any of my political statements of late? I'll admit I was partisan in the past, but at the moment I'm just sick of them all. I don't support the Republicans, and actively hope the party splits just so we can salvage some semblance of what was good from them. I don't support the Dems, and kind of hope to see them split between their practical and radical sides as well. I don't support any 3rd party group primarily because I think tey're all grasping at ideological straws at best. The Libertarians I probably like the best, but they seem far too idealistic for my taste.

Yeah, yeah it really was.

 

Libertarians believe in limited government and limited government spending, so that would be the opposite.

I already did prove it and you know it. Stop playing games.

No, I was referring to those who critique congress (like non-partisan voters), not those in it.

Taking taxpayer money to provide benefits for another person's welfare is a form of welfare. It is the redistribution of wealth. That's right! Repulicans are doing it so it can't be "welfare." Right.

Why? Did you miss the part that the taxpayer was paying for that? I think you've gotten a bit off the track. Read the information in the articles, again about how corporate welfare does not create ANY jobs sometimes, although that is the CLAIM. Oh, that's right! It's not welfare because Repbulicans are the ones doing it. Right.

Why not? They ran the Congress. They had the Contract with America. They were elected to change welfare, which they did. It was their bill and they crafted it. Excuses won't cut it. We are talking results. Oh, that's right! Republicans don't do welfare. Right.

You are hilarious. No, you are wrong. This is my topic and I crafted this thread. I was making fun of those Republicans (the opposition) who claim that Obama is a Marxist. That IS the topic. The Republicans are NOT off topic. But I'm sure you would wish that were the case because I know you only want to talk about the Dems.

Yes, that's what we are discussing, one of your recent political "statements." You've bent your statements into impossible, desperate angles to try and prove that Republicans don't do welfare, even though they clearly do. I even gave you specific welfare programs and legislation that Republicans have voted for, and still you deny it.

Btw, many Libertarians are just as partisan as anyone else. But like I said, being partisan is not necessarily something "evil" and bad. Part of the nature of politics is that people disagree, even over "the facts." Like I said, I can be partisan with the best of them, and if people don't like it that I'm a liberal they can...well...I'll just leave the rest of that to your imagination.

 

Sorry, I meant a libertarian view of the current government, not that they'd support it.

You 'proved' the first, by redefining welfare. Where did you prove the second?

Again, this is a different definition of welfare. Stick to one, please.

In that case, it really isn't welfare, not even by your definition, now is it? Republican or Democrat, that's just governments giving out money to lying corporations.

And what do you think would happen if the Dems had forced through the most liberal health care plan they had? They wouldn't have lasted through the next election, that's what. Politicians are constantly campaigning, building and maintaining an image that will get them re-elected. Only an idiot or someone who's already decided to retire would have voted to kill welfare all together.

Republican propaganda was the topic. Democratic political behavior was the topic. I didn't think Republican politican behavior was. If I had popped in and started criticizing the Republicans for their corporatist ways, how confused would everyone have been?

"Bent into impossible angles"? Sticking with a dictionary definition of welfare is an 'impossible angle'? Claiming that a group that acts to cut and restrict a program isn't in support of it is an 'impossible angle'? Try again, Chandos.

 

I didn't redefine anything.

It is plainly "welfare." You can deny it all you want.

Here's more on corporate welfare, NOG. I think you need some facts and sources. You have been arguing from such a feeble point because you have only used a 1 line definition from an online dictionary, which does not begin to describe "corporate welfare." You might be out of your depth a bit (regarding welfare), because you didn't even know that Republicans pass and support welfare legislation quite often. My advice is take sometime to look over the material that I have provided. I am not saying you have to agree, only that you have so little to offer this discussion in the way of sources, links, and specific government programs.


http://www.progress.org/corpw30.htm

Note that my sources continue to use the term "welfare," NOG.

You never heard of welfare fraud? Dude, where have you been? Your lack of even the most basic knowledge on the issue of welfare is quite astounding.

Which plan is that? Can you be specific?

Much like an 8-year old would to, I might add. That's all you have done is use a tiny definition (for "welfare") that you looked up in an online dictionary (You didn't even use a real one) to describe a complex social, economic and political issue. I provided a definition from multiple sources, articles on the issue, and even had to explain recent welfare legislation to you, which you were quite clueless on. It's becoming boring at this point, since there is not much new here.

 

Chandos, I was the first person to mention 'welfare'. When you responded with 'corporate welfare', I provided you the definition I was using for 'welfare'. If you use any other definition, you're redefining the term in the context of this discussion. This is a basic rhetorical tool. Now, if you disagree with my definition, you're free to propose an alternate, but you can't say you've met my criteria or disproven my points (using my definition of 'welfare') by arguements that use your definition of 'welfare'. This is a basic equivocation fallacy.

To put it simpler:
I argued that Democrats support welfare (aid, usually financial government aid, given to those in need to raise their socio-economic position or other significant measurements).
You said the Republicans support welfare (corporate welfare), too, so it's a non-issue.

Almost your attempts to prove that Republicans support welfare have been using this or 'the general wellbeing of all humankind' as their definitions. This is wrong. The only other attempt you've done is to say that, because the Republicans passed the last Welfare bill, they must support it.

Chandos, that's been my whole point! The term I was using doesn't describe corporate welfare, therefor corporate welfare can't be an example of how I was wrong, because I never made any claims about it.

Your sources, links, and specific government programs haven't been worth arguing, because they'e been off the point. And I noticed that your new article is more of the same.

And continues to use a different definition.

Welfare fraud is an issue of specific welfare programs, which have rules that govern who gets it, and thus can be given fraudulently.

Honestly, at this point, I'm not even sure any more, but I think it was a mandated public option.

1.) the cheap rag on Wikipedia is completely baseless, since Webster's defines it similarly, as does every other dictionary I looked at.
2.) When a term is used in a specific context, with a specific intended meaning, sticking to that meaning is hardly childish. It's actually the switching of the meaning, back and forth, which is childish (and a common logical fallacy).

Except you didn't define 'welfare'. You defined 'corporate welfare'. Now, unless you're actually proposing that those two are completely identical terms, that's not the same thing.


Anyway, this all started because I said the Dems support welfare (implying they do so substantially more than the Reps do). You challenged that. You did so, however, with a different definition of 'welfare' than what I provided. Do you fail to see how that's not a refutation of my arguement?

 

I said they were both welfare, but two different types of welfare. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Don't double-talk me, NOG. You have yet to show how Democrats are all about welfare more so than Republicans and how that makes them different from Republicans. I've been waiting for you to show that. Give me a specific source that proves that Democrats are more about welfare than Republicans. As I said, 30 years ago you could have proven that with actual programs, passed by only Democrats, you could have demonstrated that they were "all about welfare." As I commented, they have not done so in recent years. Why? Because they have not controlled Congress until 2007. And show where they have been more about welfare than Republicans in recent years. Really, put up, or shut up.

I never said it was a "non-issue." It's a huge issue. Government redistribution of wealth is a HUGE issue. Both sides engage in the redistribution of wealth and it should stop, except in the most dire circumstances. During the Great Depression, fathers actually shot their own children so that they would not have to see them starve to death before their eyes. That is real NEED, NOG. So cut the crap.

What? Are you for real? NO! I don't even know what you are talking about. It is because these companies donate to politicians, pesonally, or because it is a local issue, or a local industry, (I used GW Bush with the oil industry, a local Texas industry, as an example).

Off the point? In your dreams. That IS the point. YOU said that Democrats "buy" votes with welfare, and I returned the favor and said that both parties do, so what's your point? other than you have just proven what a partisan hack you are (which you are still doing, btw).

Two pages back I told you that "their definitions may not agree with yours," and that was fine, that it was "a point that we could not agree on," and still you wanted to prove those sources wrong. And you still have not done so, except with a simple-minded definition of "welfare" in the most general sense of the word, which has no bearing on your original comment about the Democrats. So you have spent four pages of posts unintentionally proving that people disagree in politics because they cannot even agree on a definition of terms to even begin a useful dialogue on the issue itself.

 

And yet again you accuse me of double-talk. Maybe you need to look up the definition of this, because I don't think you know what it is. Nothing I posted was double-talk. It was just pointing out your fallacy.

This and this are useful for seeing the Dem's position. For the second, I suggest the Find feature, as it's a large article. Specifically, under their fiscal policy, it says:

Interestingly, Urban Dictionary defines Democrat as:

I'm only looking at this definition, as it's the moderated one.

Comparatively, the Wikipedia article on the Republican Party says very little about welfare, but this is telling:

This is also good. The Republicans basically believe that welfare should be an issue for private charities, like churches and soup kitchens.

I'm not sure if you're intentionally mis-reading that to change the topic again or not. The 'non-issue' point was your arguement that, because both parties support 'welfare' (according to you), the Dems aren't being called Marxist because of it. Since the 'welfare' being talked about were actually two totally different things, that's wrong.

Chandos, I think you're confused here. That didn't even respond to what it quoted. What you quoted here was me saying your definitions of 'welfare' have either been 'corporate welfare' or 'the general wellbeing of all mankind', thus a completely different term from what I was using. Your response sounds like you were responding to a claim about the reasons Republicans do something.

1.) I never said the Dems buy votes. That was your mad reading into my post. I actually did say that the Reps buy votes, though.
2.) Again, you're using the equivocation fallacy. The two forms of 'welfare' that the two parties support are radically different things. All your articles have been showing that the Republicans support corporate welfare, but that's not the kind of welfare that Dems support, nor the kind I was talking about. Straighten this out.
3.) Partisan hack again? Again, do you even know what that means? Who or what, exactly, am I supporting here?

You agree that your definition and mine are different. You agree that when you say 'welfare', you're talking about something completely different from what I'm talking about. How, then, can you counter my arguement about welfare (my definition) with your own arguement about welfare (your definition)?

... This is just plain stupid, and shows you don't even know what you're taling about. First off, my definition of 'welfare' is vastly less general than yours. Secondly, it has absolute bearing on my original comment, since it's the definition of 'welfare' I was using. Both of these should be plain as day to you at this point.

 

NOG - This is from your link that is supposed to "prove" that Dems are all about welfare:

That's your own link. You are a riot!

Show me. I don't see that comment. I might be missing it.

Dude, show me. Where is this definition of yours about the Dems specific to them? That's not even a good attmept at a try.

No that's not true. You were wrong in THAT statement. Those were not my only definitions of "welfare." Go back and read the posts. You don't even know what I said at this point. You are just making up stuff.

Do you know?

I said, "both parties support corporate welfare." Straighten yourself out.